Revisionism

[Philosophos]

So I've been on this forum for some months and I 've seen a lot of times the word revisionism. I googled it and I've seen what it means about communism and it's different tendencies so I wanted to ask you:

Which main tendencies are revisionists? At the same time is revisionism a critical way of thinking that got wrong in the process of trying to make marxism better? Are there people that will be offended if you call them revisionists like for example a leninist or a maoist? If I get another question about the word I will let you know

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well I think we can all agree that Eurocommunism is revisionist.

[Art Vandelay]

The "anti-revisionists" are the most "revisionist" tendency, perhaps except for Maoists. But really what did you expect to get with this question? Are you just trying to start a flame war? Obviously every tendency will come in here and claim there's to be the proper continuation of Marx and Engels thought.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Well I think we can all agree that Eurocommunism is revisionist.

This doesn't really answer any of his questions, though, does it?


But really what did you expect to get with this question? Are you just trying to start a flame war? Obviously every tendency will come in here and claim there's to be the proper continuation of Marx and Engels thought.

From his question it seems he's genuinely curious

[helot]

As an outsider to Marxist tendencies it always seemed to me that calling someone/some tendency revisionist is like calling it reformist, it's a vague disparaging accusation. Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't revisionists nor reformists just that without any explanation as to why the accusation just seems like a pissing contest. Thing is, through providing an explanation as to why something's revisionist it negates the need to even use the word 'revisionist'.

[l'Enfermé]

Today, the major revisionist "tendencies", are the Marxist-Leninist and the Maoists; especially the Maoists due to their complete revision of the Marxist notion of what constitutes a social class and their revision of the Marxist stance towards the peasantry. Trotsky too can be accused of revisionism for his abandonment of the Marxist minimum-maximum programme. Hoxhaists too, but I don't know if there are any Hoxhaists in the world that aren't Ismail.

[Comrade Samuel]

Well I can tell you right now that this thread will boil down to "your tendency is revisionist! No, YOUR tendency is revisionist!"

Read about each, decide for yourself and don't listen to the idiocy that is most of the posts here.

[ind_com]

So I've been on this forum for some months and I 've seen a lot of times the word revisionism. I googled it and I've seen what it means about communism and it's different tendencies so I wanted to ask you:

Which main tendencies are revisionists? At the same time is revisionism a critical way of thinking that got wrong in the process of trying to make marxism better? Are there people that will be offended if you call them revisionists like for example a leninist or a maoist? If I get another question about the word I will let you know

The central goal of Marxism is the creation of a classless society. Revision of Marxist strategies and tactics well-established in specific contexts, such that the resultant line becomes useless or even harmful towards the objective of creating the communist society, is known as revisionism.

[Grenzer]

Revisionism is a well established Marxist term that has use dating back to the 1890's, from what I've read. Unfortunately, its ironic use by the Stalinists has more or less completely discredited the term and rendered it useless; much as is the case with social-democracy. The term social-democracy connotated proletarian dictatorship(giving democracy a 'social' content), but of course then it was rendered completely bankrupt by the events of 1917. For the same reason that revolutionaries should no longer use the term social-democracy to describe their views, we should probably drop all talk of revisionism as a term.

The same can be quite easily achieved by simply denigrating something as anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary, rather than going on about "revisionism". In addition it tends to be problematic because one will just use it as a slur, rather than actually describe in detail about how a given policy is counter-revolutionary.

So, in sum, revisionism is a useless term because it has been hijacked by revisionists themselves.

[l'Enfermé]

Revisionism is a well established Marxist term that has use dating back to the 1890's, from what I've read. Unfortunately, its ironic use by the Stalinists has more or less completely discredited the term and rendered it useless; much as is the case with social-democracy. The term social-democracy connotated proletarian dictatorship(giving democracy a 'social' content), but of course then it was rendered completely bankrupt by the events of 1917. For the same reason that revolutionaries should no longer use the term social-democracy to describe their views, we should probably drop all talk of revisionism as a term.

The same can be quite easily achieved by simply denigrating something as anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary, rather than going on about "revisionism". In addition it tends to be problematic because one will just use it as a slur, rather than actually describe in detail about how a given policy is counter-revolutionary.

So, in sum, revisionism is a useless term because it has been hijacked by revisionists themselves.

In a way one can't help but agree with you on this, however, words like "communism", "communist", "socialism", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "Marxism", etc, also have been hijacked and perverted by these same revisionists also, yet we choose to keep on using them and propagating their true meaning.

I think it's imperative that we reclaim "revisionism", like we try to reclaim the rest. It's a useful term sometimes.

[Comrade Hill]

Which main tendencies are revisionists?


The word "revisionist" in the Marxist sense means to revise Marxism to the point of degrading its scientific and revolutionary character. It basically boils down to taking a scientific theory, and completely distorting it. "Revisionism" can apply to other forms of science as well, not just Marxism. For example, you have Darwinism, which contains his theory of evolution. There is a current called "social Darwinism" that revises Darwinism as a scientific theory. They use Darwin's theory to justify the "survival of the fittest" of certain "elite" nationalities, as well as claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution somehow "proves" that human beings are a bunch of wild beasts who strive to kill each other to get ahead in life.

There have been trends within the international communist movement that have fallen prey to revisionism, although I don't know whether you can all of these "tendencies." For example you have Khrushevism, Brezhevism, Castroism, etc.

There's also an imaginary tendency known as "Stalinism" which some people on the left like to call revisionist. This, of course, doesn't refer to an actual tendency, but rather to what Joseph Stalin did as politician/administrator of the Soviet Union. The real term for this is Marxism-Leninism. Marxist-Leninists consider Stalin as an important figure in the history of Marxism, who with the help of his "team," carried out a correct application of Marxist-Leninist theory in the Soviet Union, regardless of the sacrifices and the losses that occurred due to the historical conditions at the time.

The people here on Revleft will have their own opinions on what "revisionism" is. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that the term "revisionism" is a scientific term, and not an ideological one. Therefore, you must carefully analyze how one uses the term "revisionism" to see if it is scientifically correct, or if it is just ideological bickering. It would be terrible mistake to completely reject the term "revisionism" on the basis that it's somehow a "meaningless term" that cannot be applied scientifically.

You can read more about what revisionism is here.
http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/02/variants-of-revisionism-marxism_27.html



At the same time is revisionism a critical way of thinking that got wrong in the process of trying to make marxism better? Are there people that will be offended if you call them revisionists like for example a leninist or a maoist? If I get another question about the word I will let you know

I'm sure it does take a lot of critical thinking to come up with a revisionist theory and get many people to follow it. However, is this particularly useful for Marxists? No, revisionism means abandoning the scientific character of Marxism, and aiding the bourgeoisie. Of course there are people that will get offended if you refer to their "Marxism" as revisionist. By referring to them as followers of revisionism, you are challenging their way of thinking, as well as their historical conceptions of the world.

Also, there's one thing I forgot. "Expanding on Marxism" as a science is not the same thing as revisionism. Lenin expanded on Marxism with his theory of imperialism, which many people still consider the latest development of Marxism. He also came up with the revolutionary strategy of forming a vanguard party of the most advanced sections of the working class to carry out the revolution in the most swift and organized way. These theories did not compromise revolutionary or scientific principles.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Revisionism is one of the key principles upon which I base my politics. Marxism is something to be expanded upon, critiqued, and revised. It is a social scientific school of thought, not a religion.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The "anti-revisionists" are the most "revisionist" tendency, perhaps except for Maoists.

Revisionism hysteria began with Mao, contrary to what Hoxhaists will tell you.

[Let's Get Free]

Revisionism is one of the key principles upon which I base my politics. Marxism is something to be expanded upon, critiqued, and revised. It is a social scientific school of thought, not a religion.

I agree. I really don't like it when Marx’s words are put on a level usually reserved for religious texts. Isn't it possible that a two-hundred year old Prussian thinker didn't quite come up with every answer to every political, social, and economic problem we’ll ever have? Isn't it reasonable to suspect that in his extensive writing, he didn't have total accuracy? Could it be that Marx, as a human being, made errors just like the rest of us?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I agree. I really don't like it when Marx’s words are put on a level usually reserved for religious texts. Isn't it possible that a two-hundred year old Prussian thinker didn't quite come up with every answer to every political, social, and economic problem we’ll ever have? Isn't it reasonable to suspect that in his extensive writing, he didn't have total accuracy? Could it be that Marx, as a human being, made errors just like the rest of us?

Devil! Be gone from this poor vessel!

The power of Trotsky compels you! The power of Trotsky compels you!

[Comrade Hill]

I agree. I really don't like it when Marx’s words are put on a level usually reserved for religious texts. Isn't it possible that a two-hundred year old Prussian thinker didn't quite come up with every answer to every political, social, and economic problem we’ll ever have? Isn't it reasonable to suspect that in his extensive writing, he didn't have total accuracy? Could it be that Marx, as a human being, made errors just like the rest of us?

Karl Marx left behind an overwhelmingly large set of theories for us. In his younger days, he subscribed to many different theories (such as surplus value) that came from classical bourgeois economists, who were really just philosophers. As he grew older, he realized his mistakes, and allowed his theory to evolve to proportions beyond what classical economists could ever imagine theorizing about.

Of course he left many things out. He was initially supposed to write six volumes of Capital. He did not leave any detailed plan about how a socialist economy should be constructed. He did not leave behind a theory about real estate, which is actually land (rent) plus the value of houses, which are commodities. He was initially going to write about all of this, but his life was too short. There are many areas in which we can expand upon in the realm of Marxism.

We cannot do that by retreating from its scientific and revolutionary character.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I agree. I really don't like it when Marx’s words are put on a level usually reserved for religious texts. Isn't it possible that a two-hundred year old Prussian thinker didn't quite come up with every answer to every political, social, and economic problem we’ll ever have? Isn't it reasonable to suspect that in his extensive writing, he didn't have total accuracy? Could it be that Marx, as a human being, made errors just like the rest of us?

Ever notice how Stalinists use the word revisionist exactly how religious fanatics use the word heretic?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

But in all honesty. Maoists aren't really revisionist in their treatment of social classes. They just build off what Lenin said in Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism and conclude that the nation is a structure created by capitalism and that the Independence under a socialist leadership of imperalized nations is a step in achieving world revolution. The nationalism of Maoists is based in political economy (which you may criticize honestly if you'd like, because this would be a fair critzism) and only applies to nations that are oppressed under imperalism. For nations that are oppressed by capitalism in it's pure form (the centers) they advocate anti-nationalist internationalism (see the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada's stance on Quebec).

Going off of the whole peasant issue, if you accept imperialism as a unique brand of capitalism applied to oppressed nations then you can see why Maoists believe that in certain situations the peasantry are a revolutionary class and the proletariat lack this revolutionary potential because their existence is depedant on imperialism and they are therefore incapable of achieving national liberation that is necessary for the establishment of socialism. For this analysis I'd recommend The Wrenched of the Earth by Franz Fanon. However this only applies to certain African nations in the 60's. Otherwise Maoists just agree with most Leninist in that the peasants are the dim-witted ally of the working class, with the only difference being that we don't believe that the butchery of the peasants under Stalin was the best policy .

[Comrade Hill]

But in all honesty. Maoists aren't really revisionist in their treatment of social classes. They just build off what Lenin said in Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism and conclude that the nation is a structure created by capitalism and that the Independence under a socialist leadership of imperalized nations is a step in achieving world revolution.


How exactly is this building off of Lenin's theory of imperialism?



The nationalism of Maoists is based in political economy (which you may criticize honestly if you'd like, because this would be a fair critzism) and only applies to nations that are oppressed under imperalism. For nations that are oppressed by capitalism in it's pure form (the centers) they advocate anti-nationalist internationalism (see the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada's stance on Quebec).


The "nationalism" of Maoism (which is probably not intended) comes from their calls for multiple classes to be allied together within the party as the revolution against the "semi-feudal" countries, or oppressed nations, expands via "People's War."

It's ridiculous to even talk about socialism when one advocates for anti-imperialist struggles purely on nationalist grounds. Anti-imperialist struggles need to only be carried out nationally where the conditions allow it to be progressive. However, the struggle must be carried out on all fronts, not just one. There are massive populations of working people in imperialist countries who are capable of challenging the capitalist system. Hell, we've already got a vanguard party in the United States ;)



you can see why Maoists believe that in certain situations the peasantry are a revolutionary class and the proletariat lack this revolutionary potential because their existence is dependent on imperialism and they are therefore incapable of achieving national liberation that is necessary for the establishment of socialism.


Well here's the thing. Imperialism is a special stage of capitalism, where many different forces become their opposites. The existence of expanding credit, monopoly, and "centralization" signify that capitalism is unconsciously trying to establish itself as a higher mode of production. These are all signs that this system is rapidly coming to an end. Economic crisis, sooner or later, will no longer be left to the confines of the 3rd world. Class antagonisms are becoming steeper and wider as this carries on. Thus, there exists a long-term threat of destabilization in all countries.

I'm sure some Maoists probably understand this, but with these conditions, I don't see why "People's War" and the "3rd world uprising" is necessary. The proletariat in imperialist countries are just as capable of smashing the bourgeois state as the proletariat is in the 3rd world. Why should we put all the heavy lifting on the proletariat in the 3rd world?

[ind_com]

I'm sure some Maoists probably understand this, but with these conditions, I don't see why "People's War" and the "3rd world uprising" is necessary. The proletariat in imperialist countries are just as capable of smashing the bourgeois state as the proletariat is in the 3rd world. Why should we put all the heavy lifting on the proletariat in the 3rd world?

The proletariat in the imperialist countries is much better off than their third world comrades. The conditions in the third world are such, that the objective pre-conditions of armed struggle exist at all times. For the imperialist countries, this conclusion might not be true. Hence the people's wars in imperialist countries need much longer preparatory periods. So, though the proletariat will ultimately smash every bourgeois state, the revolutions in the third world are more likely to occur first.

[Let's Get Free]

Hence the people's wars in imperialist countries need much longer preparatory periods. So, though the proletariat will ultimately smash every bourgeois state, the revolutions in the third world are more likely to occur first.

Even if the workers in the imperialist countries could, through some miracle, mount a successful "peoples war" against some of the most powerful states in human history, the society they would have brought about wouldn't have been one worth fighting for.

[ind_com]

Even if the workers in the imperialist countries could, through some miracle, mount a successful "peoples war" against some of the most powerful states in human history, the society they would have brought about wouldn't have been one worth fighting for.

The workers of every country are capable of creating socialist societies. They are also capable of smashing the most powerful of the bourgeois states through protracted armed struggle.

[Comrade Hill]

The proletariat in the imperialist countries is much better off than their third world comrades. The conditions in the third world are such, that the objective pre-conditions of armed struggle exist at all times. For the imperialist countries, this conclusion might not be true. Hence the people's wars in imperialist countries need much longer preparatory periods. So, though the proletariat will ultimately smash every bourgeois state, the revolutions in the third world are more likely to occur first.

There are multiple sides to the conditions of imperialist and oppressed nations. The proletariat in imperialist countries may be better off in the short term. In the long term, the well-being of proletariat in imperialist countries are threatened just like the well-being of the proletariat in the 3rd world. The development of imperialism doesn't escape from any of the laws of capitalism; it simply contains them for a short period of time. There's really no need to rely on the class consciousness of the proletariat, as I have already explained earlier.

It is also important to realize that the struggles going on in the 3rd world are national struggles against imperialism. Suppose they win, then what? Will they construct a socialist system, or will they capitulate to social-imperialist forces like how they did in China under Mao's leadership? Will the "People's government" try to justify a "new democratic" road to socialism, because of the "material conditions?" Can we really afford to sit around and guess? Making strides in gaining independence is nice, but again, we must not forget that we have long term goals. There is a theoretical basis to all of this, revolution isn't just a battle or a campaign.

Mao mentioned "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Well, yes, but where do these guns come from? They ultimately come from the labor power of human beings. The laws of capitalism command the labor of these workers. The workers in imperialist countries are armed with guns, labor power, and their immense technical development. The workers in oppressed countries are armed with guns, labor power, and their immense drive to overthrow imperialism. We can't just rely on one or the other, they both need to play a role.

It is my belief that the conditions right now are actually beginning to make a lot of room for class struggle in the more advanced capitalist countries.

[Let's Get Free]

The workers of every country are capable of creating socialist societies. They are also capable of smashing the most powerful of the bourgeois states through protracted armed struggle.

Well, first of all, a revolution isn't necessarily a military campaign. Revolutions don't have to involve guerillas in the hills or flat-out confrontations with the military. Revolution doesn't equal a military campaign. So, don't get too caught up on that kind of thinking.

Also, an armed revolt implies minority action, thus ruling out the possibility for a socialist society. Armed means may be used to defend a socialist revolution, but not make one.

[ind_com]

Well, first of all, a revolution isn't necessarily a military campaign. Revolutions don't have to involve guerillas in the hills or flat-out confrontations with the military. Revolution doesn't equal a military campaign. So, don't get too caught up on that kind of thinking.

Also, an armed revolt implies minority action, thus ruling out the possibility for a socialist society. Armed means may be used to defend a socialist revolution, but not make one.

Military action cannot be separated from any revolution. It must be used to liquidate the bourgeois military forces during and after the revolution. The military struggles can take place, according to the situation of the country, in the hills or jungles, fields or factories, streets or slums, villages or cities.

A proletarian revolution has to become a mass-action. Hence the later military actions will involve the armed masses as well. But since the proletariat needs experience and practice in war to defeat the state-armies, proletarian military actions will start with a minority.

There is one alternative to this model; that of the state-army revolting and joining the proletariat. But this is possible only if the state-army is already badly losing some war, and the revolutionaries have already organized peacefully to gain a very large mass-base. This is not possible today, as the state will militarily destroy any such peaceful communist movement long before it wins the support of even a small fraction of the masses.

[Let's Get Free]

Military action cannot be separated from any revolution. It must be used to liquidate the bourgeois military forces during and after the revolution. The military struggles can take place, according to the situation of the country, in the hills or jungles, fields or factories, streets or slums, villages or cities.

A proletarian revolution has to become a mass-action. Hence the later military actions will involve the armed masses as well. But since the proletariat needs experience and practice in war to defeat the state-armies, proletarian military actions will start with a minority.

There is one alternative to this model; that of the state-army revolting and joining the proletariat. But this is possible only if the state-army is already badly losing some war, and the revolutionaries have already organized peacefully to gain a very large mass-base. This is not possible today, as the state will militarily destroy any such peaceful communist movement long before it wins the support of even a small fraction of the masses.

The changeover to a socialist system of society has to have majority support and understanding otherwise you will simply end up with another version of capitalism. It has to be a democratic bottom-up process. There are no ifs or buts here. Socialism cannot be achieved any other way. An armed revolt would suggest the conditions of a socialist revolution are absent, mainly the prior transformation of the entire social environment and culture to the extent that even the armed forces would be thoroughly penetrated by the new ideas coursing through society. Armed insurgency, in other words, would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society.

However, I don't rule out the possibility that violence will be entailed in process of revolutionary change. But I say it will be too late for them to do anything when the shit hits the fan. If they want to stop the socialist movement now is the time to do it when the climate of opinion is more amenable and socialists are few in number. Violence does no one any favors. It is often counterproductive, and violent repression by the state only delegitimizes that state. In fact, most states only resort to violence as a last resort. If the state would destroy a peaceful communist movement, can you imagine how hard they would crackdown on an armed movement?

I think liberal democracy is the Achilles heel of capitalism. The capitalists will be suckered by their own ideology and they will have no way of ideologically fighting back against the democratically organized movement for socialist transformation once it gets going.

[ind_com]

There are multiple sides to the conditions of imperialist and oppressed nations. The proletariat in imperialist countries may be better off in the short term. In the long term, the well-being of proletariat in imperialist countries are threatened just like the well-being of the proletariat in the 3rd world. The development of imperialism doesn't escape from any of the laws of capitalism; it simply contains them for a short period of time. There's really no need to rely on the class consciousness of the proletariat, as I have already explained earlier.

Agreed. Hence the long preparatory period for people's war.


It is also important to realize that the struggles going on in the 3rd world are national struggles against imperialism. Suppose they win, then what? Will they construct a socialist system, or will they capitulate to social-imperialist forces like how they did in China under Mao's leadership? Will the "People's government" try to justify a "new democratic" road to socialism, because of the "material conditions?" Can we really afford to sit around and guess? Making strides in gaining independence is nice, but again, we must not forget that we have long term goals. There is a theoretical basis to all of this, revolution isn't just a battle or a campaign.

Any revolution can either continue to communism, or at some point succumb to capitalist restoration, even after a few decades. Till now there has been no exception to the latter after countrywide seizure of power. However, the accusation that China under Mao succumbed to social imperialism, is incorrect. China initially chose the road to socialism, with capitalist forces becoming stronger and finally capitalist restoration occurring only around the time of Mao's death, when he was mostly inactive.

The people's wars going on in the third world are aimed at national liberation. But these are led by the proletariat, with the contradictions between comprador capitalism and the proletariat being one of the main contradictions even before the countrywide seizure of power. So, if the revolution is not defeated, it takes the socialist road.


Mao mentioned "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Well, yes, but where do these guns come from? They ultimately come from the labor power of human beings. The laws of capitalism command the labor of these workers. The workers in imperialist countries are armed with guns, labor power, and their immense technical development. The workers in oppressed countries are armed with guns, labor power, and their immense drive to overthrow imperialism. We can't just rely on one or the other, they both need to play a role.

The workers in most countries are not armed, organized or trained enough to combat the state forces. So, a protracted military struggle is needed.


It is my belief that the conditions right now are actually beginning to make a lot of room for class struggle in the more advanced capitalist countries.

Very true.

[Philosophos]

The "anti-revisionists" are the most "revisionist" tendency, perhaps except for Maoists. But really what did you expect to get with this question? Are you just trying to start a flame war? Obviously every tendency will come in here and claim there's to be the proper continuation of Marx and Engels thought.

Well my friend I'm new in the left community so I have lots of questions... At the same time there is not a proper organization for me to join around my area and I don't have lots of people with left way of thinking so the only source I can get some info is the internet and especially this forum... I'm not trying to do anything but just learn something so I can take part in conversations with communists

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade Mao, "choosing the road to socialism", by befriending Comrade Nixon:

https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/nixon_mao.jpg

Comrade Mao sharing a sentimental moment with Comrade Nixon:
https://lh3.ggpht.com/_TNPyrLfg6L0/TD3FW0brF2I/AAAAAAAAAi0/4kaXflHxZ_o/s400/nixon_mao.jpg

[ind_com]

Your posts get cheaper everyday.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade Mao with Comrade Kissinger, who accidentally killed a few hundred thousand communists in Indochina:
http://www.sacu.org/pics/gs721.jpg

Comrade Mao discussing revolutionary strategy with Comrade Whitlam, President of the Australian Soviet Socialist Republic:
http://www.confuciusinstitute.unsw.edu.au/media/Image/cache/R950600-Chairman_Mao_Zedong_meeting_with_the_Hon_Gough_Whi tlam_QC_Prime_Minister_of_Australia_during_histori c_Prime_Ministerial_visit_to_the_Peoples_Republic_ of_China_31_October__4_November_1973.jpg

Comrade Mao with Comrade Heath, Prime Minister of the Soviet Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, discussing the "right road to socialism":

http://www.sacu.org/pics/gs720.jpg

[ind_com]

The changeover to a socialist system of society has to have majority support and understanding otherwise you will simply end up with another version of capitalism. It has to be a democratic bottom-up process. There are no ifs or buts here. Socialism cannot be achieved any other way. An armed revolt would suggest the conditions of a socialist revolution are absent, mainly the prior transformation of the entire social environment and culture to the extent that even the armed forces would be thoroughly penetrated by the new ideas coursing through society. Armed insurgency, in other words, would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society.

However, I don't rule out the possibility that violence will be entailed in process of revolutionary change. But I say it will be too late for them to do anything when the shit hits the fan. If they want to stop the socialist movement now is the time to do it when the climate of opinion is more amenable and socialists are few in number. Violence does no one any favors. It is often counterproductive, and violent repression by the state only delegitimizes that state. In fact, most states only resort to violence as a last resort. If the state would destroy a peaceful communist movement, can you imagine how hard they would crackdown on an armed movement?

I think liberal democracy is the Achilles heel of capitalism. The capitalists will be suckered by their own ideology and they will have no way of ideologically fighting back against the democratically organized movement for socialist transformation once it gets going.

The masses will not suddenly start supporting a communist party. The communist party needs to expand over some time. If it has a programme of socialist revolution, then it will be militarily suppressed by the bourgeoisie. Even if it somehow manages to win majority support, the state-army will be used to crush it. In no circumstances will the ruling classes give up without a fight.

[l'Enfermé]

^Will "the masses" starting supporting a communist party when the leader of such a communist party parades in front of cameras with the most criminal leaders of the international bourgeoisie as if they are his childhood buddies?


Proletarians of all countries!, flock to the party of the friends of Kissinger and Co.! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

[ind_com]

^Will "the masses" starting supporting a communist party when the leader of such a communist party parades in front of cameras with the most criminal leaders of the international bourgeoisie as if they are his childhood buddies?


Proletarians of all countries!, flock to the party of the friends of Kissinger and Co.! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

You are such a motherfucker that you are continuously posting provocative posts even though you don't have a single political point against Maoism. Mao shook hands with the Dalai Lama a couple of years after China drove him out. No one gives a fuck about who a person shakes hands with, if his political line works.

[Positivist]

In a way one can't help but agree with you on this, however, words like "communism", "communist", "socialism", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "Marxism", etc, also have been hijacked and perverted by these same revisionists also, yet we choose to keep on using them and propagating their true meaning.

I think it's imperative that we reclaim "revisionism", like we try to reclaim the rest. It's a useful term sometimes.

On the contrary I would contend that it may be necessary to drop all of these terms due to the stigma which has been stamped upon them in certain areas.

[l'Enfermé]

You are such a motherfucker that you are continuously posting provocative posts even though you don't have a single political point against Maoism. Mao shook hands with the Dalai Lama a couple of years after China drove him out. No one gives a fuck about who a person shakes hands with, if his political line works.
Mao buddying up with the most powerful leaders of the international bourgeoisie is not a political point against Maoism?

[ind_com]

Mao buddying up with the most powerful leaders of the international bourgeoisie is not a political point against Maoism?

Buddying up for what? Sharing candy or playing hopscotch?

[l'Enfermé]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/ZhouNixonBanquet.gif

Premier Zhou Enlai and Comrade General Secretary Richard Nixon celebrate the great friendship between the Glorious People of the Soviet Socialist States of America and the People's Republic of China.

[Art Vandelay]

Mao buddying up with the most powerful leaders of the international bourgeoisie is not a political point against Maoism?

It's what you do, when you're the leader of a bourgeois state.

[xvzc]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not an ideology confined to the historical defense of Mao and the PRC under his leadership, but a living ideology first theorized by the Communist Party of Peru in the '80s, adopted by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in 1993 and further enriched by CPs engaged in or preparing to launch PPW.

You display nothing but your own pitiful political bankruptcy when you cannot launch a coherent critique of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology on its own terms but can only post images of geopolitical events from the cold war.

Let's be clear: meeting specific foreign leaders does not in any way mean we have to opportunistically discard Mao's contributions in areas of political economy, philosophy, military strategy, continuing class struggle under conditions of proletarian dictatorship, and so forth.

The same opportunist logic is at play when people gasp at the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as evidence of Stalin's treachery, except in Mao's case it's completely discarded that official relations did not exist between the two countries until well after Mao's death, and that no "treaties", "pacts" or "alliances" were formed due to this meeting.